Monday, September 27, 2004

Republicans and Democrats on Science Research

I think most computer scientists, even conservatives vote Democrat for
one reason. Democrats fund the NSF, and the NSF gives us fat
paychecks.

From discussion I have with other computer scientists, I don't find
science funding a major factor in their voting decisions. On top of
that the preface doesn't hold water.
I went and computed the average yearly increase in the NSF budget
during the tenures of the last several presidents.

Carter, 7.9%

Reagan, 11.0%

Bush Sr., 10.6%

Clinton, 7.6%

Bush Jr., 9.1%

The Democratic and Republican platforms have similar goals in
scientific research though the Republican platform goes into more
detail. From the
Democratic
Platform:

We will invest in the
technologies of the future, from renewable energy to nanotechnology to
biomedicine, and will work to make permanent the research and
development tax credit. We will achieve universal access to broadband
services, which could add $500 billion to our economy, generate 1.2
million jobs, and transform the way we learn and work. And we will put
science ahead of ideology in research and policymaking.

The
Republican Platform takes two pages to give the same ideas (except
for that last sentence). Here
is the section on Research and Development.

America's economy is undergoing a fundamental transition from one
based primarily on manufacturing to one based on innovation, services,
and ideas. Two-thirds of America's economic growth in the 1990s
resulted from the introduction of new technology and 60 percent of the
new jobs of the 21st century require post-secondary education, yet
only one-third of America's workforce has achieved that level.

In
order to maintain America's global leadership, Republicans have
provided unprecedented support for federal research and development to
help spur innovation. Federal R&D funding is up 44 percent from 2001
to $132 billion in 2005, which includes a 26 percent increase in
support for basic research. The President has doubled the budget for
the National Institutes of Health and increased the National Science
Foundation budget by 30 percent. President Bush and the Republican
Party also support making the R&D tax credit permanent.

The rapid
pace of technological development demands that we remain on the
leading edge of innovation and science. Republicans are committed to
providing the investment and incentives needed to foster next
generation technologies. The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by
President Bush, increased funding for nanotechnology research. In
addition, the President has dedicated $1.7 billion over five years to
develop hydrogen fuel cells and related next-generation energy
technologies. The President's support for NASA and vision for space
exploration will also enhance scientific development and technological
breakthroughs.

In short the parties do not differ much on a future research
investment. Both platforms also push science education. The
Republicans have had a better historical record of science funding but
Bush has come under fire for ignoring science in policy making. Better
not to worry about science and use other factors in your choice of
president.

The idea that computer scientists are liberal because we are paid by liberals doesn't make sense.

Liberals support taxing the rich (and computer science, even as a professor, isn't a low-earning profession).

On a statewide basis, it tends to be the case that liberal states are the ones that get the least back per tax dollar. See, for example:http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0419-07.htmRaw data here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

I don't object to this, but greed as a liberal motivation doesn't seem likely.

I've solved it: Academia in general is more "liberal" because they are only more liberal in comparison to the general population. The reasoning is as follows:

It's safe to assume that those in academia, computer science included, are generally well educated, and more knowledgeable about issues, including politics and policy. But the pursuit of knowledge doesn't lead people to the left; it leads them to the center. Further, our country specifically is more to the right than Europe. Some who we call "leftists" would actually be considered "rightist" in Briton, for example. Thus, the ideological equilibrium of a centrist point of view looks liberal in America.

Another important issue is an awareness of diversity, particularly other cultures. This leads to a more culturally sensitive point of view (and, hopefully, less toward xenophobia, which I think those on the hard right and the hard left are both guilty of).